Intel buys up 1.3 billion kilowatts of Renewable Energy Certificates

Say what you will about Renewable Energy Certificates, Green Tags, carbon offsets and the like, but Intel sure does own a lot of them. Intel just became the largest purchaser of Renewable Energy Certificates in the US, with a commitment to snapping up 1.3 billion kilowatt hours a year of the stuff. RECs act as a sort of green "currency," allowing a company invest in renewable energy sources, instead of the pollution-ridden plant up the river fueled by the blood of innocents. Not a bad PR move, but the investment should make renewable energy sources more affordable down the line, so it's hard to fault them there.

[Thanks, Issac]

[Charles @ Jan 29th 2008 11:31AM]

Rather than being a good PR move this actually puts me off buying Intel products. I'd much rather they invest in clean, safe, reliable nuclear power than expensive, inconsistent, ugly wind farms.

[Austin @ Jan 29th 2008 11:38AM]

renewable energy: not just wind farms. it's just there as a visual. chill. even if, still better than burning oil up like it's 1993 and you need to get the **** out of Kuwait.

[TMM @ Jan 29th 2008 11:58AM]

This just in:

Intel buys up 1.3 billion kilowatts of Stupid

[max andrews @ Jan 29th 2008 12:24PM]

Oh please, if you think wind turbines are ugly you have zero geek cred. Wind turbines are the shizz.

Also, the main reason we haven't gone to all renewables is that they're simply too cheap, and the energy corporations wouldn't be able to gouge us like they do today. With oil, coal, hydrogen, ethanol, natural gas, methane, and nuclear, they all have something in common -- they use a physical fuel that is controlled and sold by a small group of wealthy people. Wind and solar are terrifying to these people because you and I could literally generate all our own energy and not pay them a cent. This is what led to the "greenwashing" hydrogen B.S., where they say "oh hydrogen is great it only produces water as exhaust and it will never run out!" The only thing they care about is that they can control its supply, and that it will never run out ensures them a millennium of deep profits at our expense.

Nuclear could be a useful "bridge" from coal to all renewables, as the technology for wind, solar, and hydro improves steadily and comes down in price over the years. But thanks to nanotechnology, there have been huge advances in solar in the past few years, and it will soon be cheaper than coal on a worldwide scale. Countries could easily generate their own energy, and we'd be free from the wars and tragedies that oil has so eagerly inspired. When the pipelines are closed and the oil fields still with silence, this will be a glorious day for mankind.

[Charles @ Jan 29th 2008 1:13PM]

Judging by my ranking it seems everyone here has been well and truly convinced that renewable energy is actually practical and that nuclear is dangerous and the work of the devil. If you actually investigate the subject you'll find renewable energy to be entirely impractical. A study by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors calculated that it would take 208 years to break even on the installation costs of solar panels on your house:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2648540.ece

As well as being ridiculously expensive and inefficient it is also inconsistent and power generation is dependent on cloud cover and hours of daylight. Since everyone is so keen to rank me low perhaps someone can explain how an obscenely expensive, incredibly inefficient and entirely inconsistent form of energy like solar power is superior to cheap, clean and consistent nuclear power?

Wind power is even worse than solar power as it has the same disadvantages but is also extremely loud. A school located near my house recently installed two wind turbines and the noise is ridiculous. Don't take my word for it though, ask anyone who lives by them or look at articles such as this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/16/nwind16.xml

Like solar wind power is extremely inconsistent and unreliable. The turbines by me are static most of the time, though sometimes they can be seen spinning at about 5000rpm despite there being absolutely no wind. I assume this is for propaganda purposes to show the children at the school the benefits of wind power even though the turbines are actually wasting power. Wind power is noisy, ugly, expensive and inconsistent so once again can somebody tell me how it is superior to cheap, clean and consistent nuclear power?

The left wing New Labour government here in the UK couldn't be any more obsessed by “green” causes yet even they have been forced to approve new nuclear power stations to meet the growing power requirements of the UK simply because renewable energy is too expensive, too inefficient and too inconsistent.

[John @ Jan 29th 2008 1:19PM]

wind farms are ugly. coal-fired generation plants are majestic and beautiful...

though i do agree that there's a significant place for nuclear energy. No renewable energy sources have the ability to provide the constant base-load that nuclear power gen can create (except hydro-electric, which is geographically limited). Still, the idea that you can run smaller nuke facilities that are suplimented by other energy sources seems like a pretty reasonable idea to me.

[bug squasher @ Jan 29th 2008 1:29PM]

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know the oil industry trolls would be all over this!

Why would Intel invest in nuclear energy.........when its just come out in the news that some nuke plants in the south might have to SHUT DOWN because of droughts? Oh and those states will have to outsource their power at EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE rates.

Makes sense to invest in newer, cleaner, less dangerous technologies. Only on engadget would you find someone dumb enough to say they're turned off by a company investing in renewable energy. LOL how stupid can you be? Oh, forgot your paid to spread this disinformation.

[Charles @ Jan 29th 2008 1:45PM]

bug squasher, your inability to reason is demonstrated by the fact that you call me an oil industry troll. The only method of power generation I have endorsed is nuclear power which is a competitor to oil. I somehow doubt the oil industry would pay me to promote their competition.

Everyone is ranking me low but nobody is answering the questions: How is an energy generation technology that takes 208 years to pay for itself and that generates power on inconsistent basis superior to one that generates power consistently and cheaply?

Furthermore, why is the largely anti-nuclear Labour Party backing nuclear power? Could it be that after commissioning an study they found energy sources such and wind and solar to be impractical and that nuclear is the only viable clean source of power?

[mike @ Jan 29th 2008 2:40PM]

I think Wind Farms are amazing to look at.

There is a massive wind farm up 680 in Northern CA. I have to drive from San Jose to Sacramento sometimes, and this is always the best part of the trip. Giant rolling hills with wind turbines everywhere...

[EQC @ Jan 29th 2008 5:43PM]

Charles:

This article that you linked (
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2648540.ece
) is crap. Your reading comprehension skills are also poor if you use that article to say that solar panels will take 208 years to break even on the installation costs.

If you look at the article (not just the headline), you'll see that they spent £5,000 (roughly $10,000) to install "solar panels to heat water." Then, they used those panels to produce about $50 of electricity for the whole year, thus the "over 200 years" to pay-back. What the hell is that? Only a moron would do that.

All the rest of the numbers in your article are related to taking an existing house and paying an (overpriced) contractor to install energy saving items like extra insullation and double-pane windows -- all of these things could be installed for much cheaper, especially if they were added to the house when it was being built. Additionally, they have very little to do with the viability of solar panels.

How about some USEFUL numbers instead.

The SMART way to install solar panels is on a house to provide electricity to the whole house. Instead of storing solar power in batteries for use at night, the house should be tied to the electrical grid -- during the day, you can draw power for the house from the solar panels. If you need extra, your house will also draw from the grid. If you're producing extra, you sell power to the grid. At night, you buy power (which generally comes in at a cheaper rate than daytime "peak hour" power).

Useful numbers:
My parents 2500 square foot house in Southern California consumes about 700 kW-hours of electricity per month. The don't have a solar power system. They buy all their power from the local electric company at about 12 cents per kiloWatt-hour during peak hours, and about 3 cents per kiloWatt hour late at night.

Lets also say that they bought a solar-power system from this website: http://www.solarpanelstore.com/solar-power-packages.cse-medium-grid-tie.html.
(I found that site with a very quick google search...there may be better deals out there).

Look at that! Real numbers! A whole solar power system to power the entire house for 10% more than your stupid article paid for a solar water heating system.

From my linked website, they could get a 1.98 kW system for $11,500. If that system worked at 75% of its rated power for 8 hours a day on average, it would produce 12 kiloWatt hours per day. In a month, that would be 360 kiloWatt hours.

Even IGNORING THE FACT THAT my parents would be selling excess power during the day and buying back cheap power at night, that 360 kiloWatt hours per month would offset half their power bill. Period. PERIOD. So, they'd be saving at least $35/month. At that rate (which is a LOW ESTIMATE), they'd break-even in 26 years.

26 YEARS TO BREAK EVEN USING REALISTIC NUMBERS and neglecting extra benefits like selling extra power to the power company, and buying cheap night-time power, etc.

Further, in other areas of California, the power company is a bit greedier, and some people pay up to 3x as much as my parents (ie: 30 cents per kiloWatt hour).

Further again: when buying a solar panel system, the state/federal government will often offer incentives/grants to help you pay for the system. These are often in the THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, further reducing the time to pay-back.

Finally, even if you only lived in your house for 10 years, the installed solar panel system would add value to your selling price. People who know what they're talking about actually like the idea of sending less money to the electric company each month.


And Lastly, Solar panels are only getting cheaper. Anybody who reads Engadget or Gizmodo knows that every few months there's another story on developments that will, in a few years, cut the price of solar panels in half or in quarters. A big price drop will also decrease your break-even time. Meanwhile, the costs of electricity will likely keep going up...

[EQC @ Jan 29th 2008 5:54PM]

One more point:

Solar power is, indeed, somewhat inconsistent. Cloud cover will REDUCE (not eliminate) the power produced.

But you know what? San Francisco, the city known for clouds and fog all year round has just decided it would be economically beneficial to enact a huge solar-panel plan for homes and businesses in the city.

I'm sure you've got a whole lot of conspiracy theories about whats *really* going on, but unless you can back it up and explain why exactly *you* know more than the City of San Francisco, please keep them quiet. Here's a news release: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22217453/

Hey, looky here! A San Francisco company selling solar power systems. They've got a 1.98 kW system like the one I talked about above. After applying various cash-back regates and government subsidies, it costs about $7000.

[NovaLand @ Jan 30th 2008 12:51AM]

I'd love to get one of those blades in my head one day:
http://www.nyteknik.se/multimedia/archive/00021/VindKulle11ccKrister_21357a.JPG

There have been a lot of accidents in Germany. Here in sweden there's only a few handfull accident the last couple of years. At least it's probably easier (still) to get an airplane in your head if one is living in new york or philadelphia.

[YoJIMbo @ Feb 4th 2008 10:59AM]

They should just invest in these guys:

http://www.ambientfoundation.org

[spam_from_engadget @ Jan 29th 2008 11:36AM]

There's a difference between "1.3 billion kilowatts" (title) and "1.3 billion kilowatt hours a year" (article). In fact, it's a difference of a factor of 8760. Which is it?

(It's rare to find journalism that understands the units of power and energy - which is why I propose abandoning Watts and Joules and using lightbulbs and donuts instead, since they mean something to more people....)

[markwilliams4 @ Jan 29th 2008 11:45AM]

The intel press release says "1.3 billion kilowatt hours a year".

[daemonios @ Jan 29th 2008 11:47AM]

Actually, I don't understand why you come up with that factor of 8760... I thought watts and watt-hours measure different things: the first measures power, the second measures actual energy. Thus a 1000 kilowatt (kW) plant working at full load will generate 1000 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of energy in an hour.

To Charles: granted, wind farms are ugly. But how ugly is a nuclear power plant after a serious accident? Yes I know, the risks are kept low, but the potential damage is catastrophic (incidentally, I seem to recall reading somewhere that many nuclear power plant workers had been found to be less than diligent).

Just my 2 cents' worth :)

[James Barnes @ Jan 29th 2008 11:51AM]

unless I miss my guess, it would have to be KWh. KW is a measure of rate, not a finite quantity of power, as is KWh

I would argue with the question aswell, it should be, "if Intel are buying 1.3Bn KW, then for how long?"

[spam_from_engadget @ Jan 29th 2008 11:50AM]

> The intel press release says "1.3 billion kilowatt
> hours a year".

Thanks; that's 148 megawatts, or about 6 million lightbulbs.

[oshean @ Jan 29th 2008 10:16PM]

....or about 636,285,468 and one half Krispy Kreme donuts. Mmmm donuts.

[CanCar @ Jan 29th 2008 11:57AM]

The renewable energy also includes solar heat, water power, biomass energy. Will be the companies interested in investing something of they gains in the application and development of these technologies?

[spam_from_engadget @ Jan 29th 2008 11:54AM]

@daemonios:

8760 = number of hours in a year.

1.3 billion kWhr/year = 3.5 million kWhr/day = 148 thousand kWhr/hour = 148 thousand kW.

[James Barnes @ Jan 30th 2008 12:01AM]

the point being that it's 148,000 KW .... for a year (or 8760 hours ... unless it's a leapyear ;-) ), which becomes 13.4 Bn KWh

and nuclear is not a long term solution, at least fission isn't in its current form ... it might just bridge the gap to practical fusion though....

[spam_from_engadget @ Jan 30th 2008 4:10AM]

> the point being that it's 148,000 KW .... for a year (or
> 8760 hours ... unless it's a leapyear ;-) ), which becomes
> 13.4 Bn KWh

You can think that if you like, but the Intel press release says "1.3 billion kilowatt hours a year".

[John Johnson @ Jan 29th 2008 12:24PM]

1300 JIGGAWATTS!

[Owen V @ Jan 29th 2008 12:31PM]

I was so going to say it, but you beat me to it. thats enough to power the delorean for over 1000 hours!

[YoJIMbo @ Feb 4th 2008 10:59AM]

Dude... please... that would totally FRY the FluxCapacitor!!! It's "1.21 GIGAWATTS" (soft G pronunciation)

[matt @ Jan 29th 2008 12:29PM]

I guess you don't need to pass high school science to get a job as a writer for engadget

[insertAlias @ Jan 29th 2008 1:07PM]

You know, you're a smug asshole.

I don't remember all my conversions and units of power/energy, and I've never felt stupid because of it. Some of us don't need it in our daily life, and we have more important things to remember.

[matt @ Jan 29th 2008 1:09PM]

you're right - why should the media get the facts straight? we're too busy with our lives to do it ourselves.

[kjb434 @ Jan 29th 2008 12:29PM]

Is there even that much so called energy available?

Also, tons of environmental groups are stopping every wind farm application being put in the south because of migratory birds.

They didn't object to the nuclear power plant existing and being applied for because they don't do harm to migratory fowl and the nearby environment.

And if people actually knew how a nuclear plant operates, they will realize that it is the cleanest form of mass energy creation that exist.

Also, nuclear waste is a minimum. And you say what about Yucca Mountain and all of our current waste? Well, the EPA (created by Nixon) and the idiot Jimmy Carter banned the concept of recycle nuclear fuel. Only 2% of ever nuclear rod used is actually waste. The rest can be recycled and re-used. France has been doing this for years. Our nuclear waste would be drastically cut down if we were allowed to recycle. No, the environmentalist thought they new more and banned it hoping it would stop nuclear power

[DarkAardvark @ Jan 29th 2008 4:24PM]

instead of getting rid of wind farms, they should make more and just put meat factories around them. that way, when the birds get chopped in half, they can just cook it up.

there you go, hitting two birds with one stone (or windmill): solve electricity needs AND world hunger.

[kjb434 @ Jan 29th 2008 4:31PM]

There goes several endangered bird species!

I guess you can say the clean wind power energy is bad for the ecosystem. hehe

I guess what i heard several energy analyst say before. No clean energy is without harm to the environment.

[paul-engadget @ Jan 29th 2008 12:43PM]

actually, this will put UP the price of so-called green energy - generation of green electricity is not a mass commodity, so by Intel buying up a huge tranche of it will make it a more scarce resource... in the short term. However, market forces will prevail and if there's demand, more producers will come online.

[matt @ Jan 29th 2008 12:52PM]

why don't you fix your post so it says kilowatt hours per year instead of pretending to not only be a scientist, but also an economist? it's clear you're obviously neither.

[eric cumbee @ Jan 29th 2008 1:22PM]

Sorry, but this whole Renewable Energy Certificates seems to much like the indulgences sold by the catholic church around the time of the reformation.

[Josh L @ Jan 29th 2008 1:41PM]

Indeed, the modern environmentalist movement has many similarities to the medieval Catholic church. For example, taking the talking points of demagogues as facts based on solid evidence (and doing so on blind faith). Or vilifying anyone with an opposing opinion and trying to destroy them both personally and professionally.

Carbon indulgences, blatant hypocrisy... The list goes on.

[Allen @ Jan 29th 2008 12:52PM]

In other news, Intel is still a processor monopoly.

[ssuk @ Jan 29th 2008 2:14PM]

And...?

[UTenigma @ Jan 29th 2008 12:53PM]

Is it really 1.3 billion kilowatts... or rather 1.21 GIGIAWATTS!

[matt @ Jan 29th 2008 1:01PM]

giga = 10^6
billion = 10^6

trillion = 10^9
tera = 10^9

[spam_from_engadget @ Jan 29th 2008 1:29PM]

@matt:
> giga = 10^6
> billion = 10^6
>
> trillion = 10^9
> tera = 10^9

Oh please. It's one thing that some people don't know what a kilowatt-hour is. But not knowing what a BILLION is??? Seriously.

kilo = 10^3
thousand = 10^3

mega = 10^6
million = 10^6

giga = 10^9
billion = 10^9

trillion = 10^12
tera = 10^12

[UTenigma @ Jan 29th 2008 3:07PM]

OMG - watch freaking back to the future you morons

It's a joke...

[DarkAardvark @ Jan 29th 2008 4:28PM]

deca = 10
ten = 10

[Austin @ Jan 29th 2008 5:32PM]

1.21 Jigawatts!? Great Scott! I'm sure that in 2058, plutonium is available in every corner drug store, but in 2008 it's a little hard to come by. Marty, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're stuck with coal!

[Charles @ Jan 29th 2008 1:45PM]

bug squasher, your inability to reason is demonstrated by the fact that you call me an oil industry troll. The only method of power generation I have endorsed is nuclear power which is a competitor to oil. I somehow doubt the oil industry would pay me to promote their competition.

Everyone is ranking me low but nobody is answering the questions: How is an energy generation technology that takes 208 years to pay for itself and that generates power on inconsistent basis superior to one that generates power consistently and cheaply?

Furthermore, why is the largely anti-nuclear Labour Party backing nuclear power? Could it be that after commissioning an study they found energy sources such and wind and solar to be impractical and that nuclear is the only viable clean source of power?

[EQC @ Jan 29th 2008 6:03PM]

Read my post/reply above. That "208 years" you're using is based on using a $10,000 solar power system to heat water. Read the article you linked to see exactly what they were evaluating.

Like I said above, you can get a 1.98 kW system (more than enough to power most homes during the day) for about $12,000 without even considering government rebates, etc. So, your article says that they overpaid for a solar water heating system, and a person with reasonably intelligence should instead pay for a system to provide electricity for their house.

[bartoron @ Jan 29th 2008 2:02PM]

Charles, solar power would only take 200 years to pay back the cost of installation if you live in Siberia.

[bartoron @ Jan 29th 2008 2:04PM]

And yeah, those indulgences were bad. Johnathan Tetzel was all like, "buy my indulgences, they're cool and will get you into heaven!" But then Luther was all like, "no wai, dat no be true!" Then he gathered lots of supporters and the peasants revolted. It wasn't fun.

[Matt M @ Jan 29th 2008 5:42PM]

Renewable energy is the future, people. It may be noisy or ugly at first but so were automobiles. It will improve with time and with funding and that's just what Intel is doing. I hope you all stop debating which energy source is better than another because any energy that requires fuel of some kind is inferior.

So what if it takes 200 years or more in some cases to recoup the costs of the equipment. Consider it an investment in the future of mankind instead of being so selfish and short-sighted.

Solar / Wind / Hydro. / Geothermal is the way.

[kjb434 @ Jan 29th 2008 5:57PM]

"Solar / Wind / Hydro. / Geothermal is the way"

Lets take each one:

Solar: besides that it is not consistent and relies on harmful and toxic bateries because of this, it's not necessarily all clean. Also, covering tons of suburban homes with solar power would create problems in the aviation (not just for planes but for many migrating bird species). Solar panels also add to the heat island effect (urban areas generate heat from expanses of concrete) which most pro-environmental people are trying to reverse.

Wind: I want to see someone go to the mountains and build wide swaths of wind mills that detract from the scenic beauty in which many people want to preserve. Wind power is routinely fought against by migratory bird protection groups. Several wind farms are being fought against with this premise in southern coastal Texas. Data they are using is based upon migratory birds being severely threatened and diminished from wind farms in California.

Hydroelectric Power: Perhaps the worst of the clean energies. Yes, the energy itself is extremely clean. No waste. But there is a an environmental hazard created by the lakes that get built up be the dams that are constructed. First wild life needs to be relocated and potential archaeological sites need to be explored before the flooding of the new lake. After the lake is created, all the plant life begins to rot. If not procedure is in place to clean this water or remove much of the plant life, the lake will become toxic to most marine life. It takes years before fish can thrive within the lake which then supports many other animals. Many young lakes have the sludge created removed and disposed of in various methods.

Geothermal: Again, a very clean method at first. But when vast quantities ofthis form of energy are used in an area, the maximum return is diminished. This industry also has to answer questions regarding aquifer disturbance for drinking water resources. Heavy government oversite (which is never a good thing) is actually needed to ensure that everyone gets an equally distribution of the energy potential.


Just spouting various forms of energy creation because you don't like fossil fuels or nuclear power isn't a solution. When one truly investigate each energy generation method, you realized that they all have their problems.

Also, so called big oil is the worlds largest generator of clean energy. How? Shell Oil Company is part of a larger company that produces the most solar energy on the planet currently. BP/Amocco is large researcher producer of wind farms. Exxon/Mobile invests heavily in solar and geothermal. Also, the top 5 biggest oil companies in the world are not even the companies you typically think of. The top 5 are companies run by government states. Saudi Aramco and PMex are two of the largest.

Just a thought